State legislation watch thread

[Jonaspublius]

It would be great to have a group advocating a regional hookup of NJ, MA, Delaware, and any nearby states. With the caveat that existing casinos, tracks, tribes, and lottos got expedited, cheap licenses where some tax revenue is defrayed by the licensing fee.

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by Jonaspublius

It would be great to have a group advocating a regional hookup of NJ, MA, Delaware, and any nearby states. With the caveat that existing casinos, tracks, tribes, and lottos got expedited, cheap licenses where some tax revenue is defrayed by the licensing fee.

It would be really great to have people stop believing that if they have not read about it it must not be happening.

And the response to your response is: it would be like the NRA spending all its money to merely get good gun laws in Iowa and Florida because getting Congress to protect gun rights is just too hard.

Skallagrim

[Gemaco]

State of Connecticut Senate Race:

Chris Murphy vs Linda McMahon, who is better for poker?

Has either of them given an official stance? I assume neither has and that voting for the democrat is the least of both evils ... please correct me if I am wrong.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

It would be really great to have people stop believing that if they have not read about it it must not be happening.

And the response to your response is: it would be like the NRA spending all its money to merely get good gun laws in Iowa and Florida because getting Congress to protect gun rights is just too hard.

Skallagrim

It is really great to have people who have information to share to post in response to questions about things like regional pooling or multi-state prize pooling of casino games.

1. Delaware currently pools prizes with West Virginia and Rhode Island. I was not sure from what i heard that this includes casino games, like slot jackpots, but that was the context of the remark. The Delaware Lottery and the casinos there are very close.

2. MultiState prize pooling and games are common among tribes located in different States.

3. New Jersey's plan is to pool among States/countries as needed.

4. Nevada will be open to pooling, if it thinks it is needed for poker liquidity.

[BlaneH]

Originally Posted by Jonaspublius

It would be great to have a group advocating a regional hookup of NJ, MA, Delaware, and any nearby states. With the caveat that existing casinos, tracks, tribes, and lottos got expedited, cheap licenses where some tax revenue is defrayed by the licensing fee.

Agreed.

[TBadr]

Originally Posted by CashRules36

Massachusetts gaming commission talking about internet gambling today.

http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/massach...nternet-gaming

There will be a long day forum on May 3rd that will include discussing "internet gaming". Is the PPA going to have a rep attending?

http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/politic...-daylong-forum

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by TBadr

There will be a long day forum on May 3rd that will include discussing "internet gaming". Is the PPA going to have a rep attending?

http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/politic...-daylong-forum

Sounds like a good opportunity to represent the interests of poker players in NJ, Penn and Mass, as it looks to be a regional compact perhaps under consideration:

"Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby announced Tuesday that the Commission will host a daylong educational forum on May 3 rd at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. The forum will bring together industry leaders and gaming regulators from New Jersey and Pennsylvania who will discuss the ins and outs of launching a new regulatory commission."

On the other hand, maybe Mass is just looking for help in setting up a Mass-only commission.

Skall has a lot of State-level experience with Mass, maybe he would be a good choice to get on a panel as a PPA expert ?

[spacegod]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

1. Delaware currently pools prizes with West Virginia and Rhode Island. I was not sure from what i heard that this includes casino games, like slot jackpots, but that was the context of the remark. The Delaware Lottery and the casinos there are very close.

The combined population of those states is about 4 million, or less than 1/11th the population of Spain. DQ, that's why I don't share the same level of optimism with you about a state solution. Sure, you may argue that more and more states could get tacked on, but how many is it going to take to get real liquidity to realistically support multiple big sites? How long will it take for this to happen, and will the liquidity problem be bad enough to force sites out before this even gets a chance to work? It will it least take a couple states with large populations imo. If states decide to fracture off on these isolated networks, the end result may be a disaster. For instance,

3. New Jersey's plan is to pool among States/countries as needed.

NJ has already said or hinted that they want to be the state that offers regulations to these other states they may pool with. They feel they have the expertise (not sure why because all of their expertise is in land-based gaming), but Nevada surely feels the same. Best case scenario might be two large networks, i.e. east coast (NJ backbone) / west coast (NV backbone, 1994 gangsta rap style.

4. Nevada will be open to pooling, if it thinks it is needed for poker liquidity.

They will HAVE to pool since their state population is less than 3 million. Pooling with California would be a dream, but I would not be surprised if Cali has a "we run our own show" mentality w.r.t. online gaming. In fact, I think I recall some comments like those already being made.

So to summarize, I guess my biggest concerns are:

1.) What population is required to sustain multiple sites and enough games to even make this a worthwhile venture for us, the players?
2.) How long will it take to include enough states in a compact to reach the required liquidity?

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by spacegod

The combined population of those states is about 4 million, or less than 1/11th the population of Spain. DQ, that's why I don't share the same level of optimism with you about a state solution. Sure, you may argue that more and more states could get tacked on, but how many is it going to take to get real liquidity to realistically support multiple big sites? How long will it take for this to happen, and will the liquidity problem be bad enough to force sites out before this even gets a chance to work? It will it least take a couple states with large populations imo. If states decide to fracture off on these isolated networks, the end result may be a disaster. For instance,



NJ has already said or hinted that they want to be the state that offers regulations to these other states they may pool with. They feel they have the expertise (not sure why because all of their expertise is in land-based gaming), but Nevada surely feels the same. Best case scenario might be two large networks, i.e. east coast (NJ backbone) / west coast (NV backbone, 1994 gangsta rap style.



They will HAVE to pool since their state population is less than 3 million. Pooling with California would be a dream, but I would not be surprised if Cali has a "we run our own show" mentality w.r.t. online gaming. In fact, I think I recall some comments like those already being made.

So to summarize, I guess my biggest concerns are:

1.) What population is required to sustain multiple sites and enough games to even make this a worthwhile venture for us, the players?
2.) How long will it take to include enough states in a compact to reach the required liquidity?

Excellent points ..... especially with repect to the States moving most quickly. There IS a real danger they will face liquidity issues, but the danger is not insurmountable, certainly not technologically an issue. Networks can be built, sliced, diced, fenced without blocking player liquidity, if that needs to be accomodated, especially with respect to tournament pools.

First, 26 States each have a population over 4 million.

Nevada's likely licensees will likely have B&M operations in some 21 States or so, plus likely approved partnerships with international network providers.

While California's COPA seeks to "build a wall around California", to quote one tribal representative, that "revenue wall" would not preclude pooling players with other States' licensees. The key is Revenue, i.e taxes. If a State thinks it can protect its hold on revenue from its residents' action, it likely would be open to getting the benefits of pooling, a la Powerball.

There is also the very real likelihood that pooling with international player pools is more readily available than multi-state pooling for smaller States.

Sweden has a population of about 9.4 million and supports a State-run site. A couple of States could get to that size pretty fast by compact, the 'danger" may be that those fast-acting States' operators may be lotteriy/monopolies, an industry area players have not tapped into for communication of "player interests".

LOL at the East Coast/West Coast gangsta reference. (Keep in mind Tupac got shot near the corner of Flamingo and the Strip.) the truth id that a North/South network, among similar timezones would work best for liquidity, think of a Canada to Argentina player pool tapped by US sites.

[bgomez89]

any news on the california bill?

[thaaxis]

Originally Posted by bgomez89

any news on the california bill?

+1

[The Deal]

IMHO when you see the first state get Ipoker up and running you will see MANY more follow. Just look at WV, MD, PA, DE for example. As soon as things started hopping for WV, PA got into the casino game. As soon as PA hit it big MD followed suit and are now trying for table games.

I honestly think if we see a state or two go with this you will see the ball start rolling much faster on the state level. I also think it's some of what of the "NO you do it first" type of thing. Some states are more willing to wait and see and see what will happen and other's want to be the first one's in the kiddie after the big turd was found and removed.

Personally I would much rather see fed regulation but at this point just bring on the poker already, I don't care any more who the hell gets it going.

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by The Deal

IMHO when you see the first state get Ipoker up and running you will see MANY more follow. Just look at WV, MD, PA, DE for example. As soon as things started hopping for WV, PA got into the casino game. As soon as PA hit it big MD followed suit and are now trying for table games.

I honestly think if we see a state or two go with this you will see the ball start rolling much faster on the state level. I also think it's some of what of the "NO you do it first" type of thing. Some states are more willing to wait and see and see what will happen and other's want to be the first one's in the kiddie after the big turd was found and removed.

Personally I would much rather see fed regulation but at this point just bring on the poker already, I don't care any more who the hell gets it going.

There is some truth to that, but not all that simple due to other factors.

As regards live casinos, the states faced the reality that their citizens were already taking their money out of state to the casino in a neighboring state. The same won't be true for i-poker (it was a good argument pre-BF in regards to offshore sites, but not so strong at the moment).

In addition, it is hard to get online gambling legislation through a legislature. Each time a state takes it up, it faces opposition from vested interests (b&m casinos, Indian casinos, lottery, etc.) and anti-gambling-expansion lobbyists.

There is also the matter of liquidity and revenue stream. Only a few states have the population necessary to create an independent i-poker industry with sustainable liquidity. The expansion to necessary multi-state player pools is politically complicated and will take time to accomplish.

And the state-by-state route is likely to develop through state lottery monopolies in many states, resulting in a single-provider system in these states where it is likely that the i-poker will languish as a side note to a multi-casino-game offering.

So, be careful what you wish for.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

There is some truth to that, but not all that simple due to other factors.

As regards live casinos, the states faced the reality that their citizens were already taking their money out of state to the casino in a neighboring state. The same won't be true for i-poker (it was a good argument pre-BF in regards to offshore sites, but not so strong at the moment).

In addition, it is hard to get online gambling legislation through a legislature. Each time a state takes it up, it faces opposition from vested interests (b&m casinos, Indian casinos, lottery, etc.) and anti-gambling-expansion lobbyists.

There is also the matter of liquidity and revenue stream. Only a few states have the population necessary to create an independent i-poker industry with sustainable liquidity. The expansion to necessary multi-state player pools is politically complicated and will take time to accomplish.

And the state-by-state route is likely to develop through state lottery monopolies in many states, resulting in a single-provider system in these states where it is likely that the i-poker will languish as a side note to a multi-casino-game offering.

So, be careful what you wish for.

If wishes were horses, beggers would ride.

I've long said the fight bills that would eventually pass would be at the State-level, I never said it would be easy or that the outcome with respect to player interests was not in doubt.

Ignoring State-level activities has been to the peril of players collective interests.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by bgomez89

any news on the california bill?

There is a whole California thread in the forum, you might look there.

I heard from a COPA representative that the California cardrooms and many of the tribes have joined in a coalition, i.e. COPA, to push a bill thru ..... so maybe there will be some movement.

I think there was yet another amendment this week ..... but the price tag is still $30,000,000 upfront against future revenue.